Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ramona Williams v. Lisa Burgress, 10-6798 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-6798 Visitors: 103
Filed: Aug. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6798 RAMONA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LISA BURGRESS, Officer employed by the local U.S. Marshals Service; DOE #2, Officer employed by the local U.S. Marshals Service; DOE #3, Officer employed by the local U.S. Marshals Service; DOE #4, Officer employed by the local U.S. Marshals Service; DOE #5, Officer employed by the local U.S. Marshals Service, Defendants – Appellees, and UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; UNKNOWN
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6798 RAMONA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LISA BURGRESS, Officer employed by the local U.S. Marshals Service; DOE #2, Officer employed by the local U.S. Marshals Service; DOE #3, Officer employed by the local U.S. Marshals Service; DOE #4, Officer employed by the local U.S. Marshals Service; DOE #5, Officer employed by the local U.S. Marshals Service, Defendants – Appellees, and UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; UNKNOWN OFFICER OF UNTIED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00115-REP) Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 22, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramona Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Ramona Williams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Williams’ civil rights action, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Burgress, No. 3:09-cv-00115-REP (E.D. Va. May 13, 2010; June 14, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer